guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Animal companion/Archive 1
Archive Correction? Experience "A pet will "never" reach a higher level than its owner." This is not true. I tamed a Melandru's stalker when I was level 4, the pet started out with level 5. After some time I leveled up to level 5. After some more time, the pet leveled up to level 6 while I was still at level 5. I guess that pets level up at the same speed as players, and that it just seems that pets never reach higher levels than their owners because most pets, when tamed, have a lower level than their owner. But that's really just guessing. Psyringe 23:28, 18 Sep 2005 (EST) :This makes sense, especially if pets don't get quest or mission XP (as stated in the article). As a result, pets would generally lage behind their owners. But yes, it's very possible to get a level 5 Melandru's Stalker when you are still level 1. --JoDiamonds 16:41, 24 October 2005 (EST) Also, my testing indicates that pets gain experience at least twice as fast as players, covering the jumps between levels in many fewer kills than a player would need. This is particularly easy to test with a low level pet. - Epinephrine :I highly doubt this. Remember that by default, low level characters/mobs/pets gain exp faster ANYWAYS. Your theory implies that, if a ranger, right after reaching level 5, tames a level 5 stalker, and the ranger do no missions whatsoever afterwards, the stalker will hit level 6 first. Unfortunately I don't have the character slots to personally test this right now. ::Fortunately I do ;) Did some testing, was correct. Pets level faster than us. see thread here - still doing testing, but it looks like they follow different rules. http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92406 Assumption is that they cannot pass a player's level, and since they gain less experience than you do if fighting lower level foes you will catch up to your pet's level, at which point it cannot pass yours. Making a pre-searing character on my other account to test this aspect. --Epinephrine 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC) :::Well, data continues to accumulate at the above link - Given that deolmstead's pet gained it's experience when dead and mine while alive that settles the "gains like a player of the same level" myth. Now we have to figure out how it really does work, but perhaps the reference to experience could be changed to reflect tested facts? I'm new to editing wikis, but I made a change just now, hopefully it is alright? --Epinephrine 16:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC) :::: Continued testing of pet experience has shown several things: Pets level faster than players both when below or above the owner's level; the rate seems to be roughly double the experience rate. The test just conducted was on a level 5 Melandru's Stalker, using a level 2 ranger made for this purpose. I tested in pre searing qualitatively, and showed that the pet can not only be higher level (obviously true, as you can tame it) but also can gain levels while above the player's level. Re-made, brought the same setup post-searing, and this time killed the devourers outside of Ascalon (level 4) repeatedly, to test experience gain. This should take ~55 kills for the pet to level from 5->6 if it gains as a player; 27 or so if it gains at double normal rate - unfortunately I didn't realise that the Devourers there sometimes spawn a plague devourer instead - it took ~33 kills to level, the pet had only gained experiece coming through the battle from pre-to post searing and fighting these foes - this is slightly off the 27 kills predicted, but the level 3 Plague Devourers mixed in there may account for the difference. I'll keep testing, but it is good to know that pets level both below and above a player's level, and at approximately double normal rate. --Epinephrine 12:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC) General I'd like to point to the Guide written by Jenosavel and Epinephrine; http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89491 it details many aspects of Animal Companions and shows that many aspects listed here are incorrect; in particular: - Armour values - Damage types - Pet Evolution Stats The Pet Evolution Methods list on the wiki lists incorrect causes for evolution changes - Dire is not associated with pet attack skills, nor does Hearty have anything to do with player damage. :I would liek to point out that, the article's mention of pet skills are as a mean to affect overall damage done by the pet. Thus, it's completely consistent with your summary of have the pet deal more damage than you to move it towards Dire. Your own writeup also specificallly mentioned that it's hard to judge whether the damage dealt by the master (in relation to damage dealt by pet) has effect on evolution, and is hard to immediately dismiss. Thus your comment above seem to imply you have reached furthur conclusion that you did not reach in your original guide. :It does make intuitive sense though that damage "tanked" would push a pet towards Hearty. -PanSola 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) :Finally, your armor values do make sense. Pet has essentially warrior-class armor without additional bonus to physical attacks. So it's 20 + 3*Level. -PanSola 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) :Also, it's ironic that, much of the "incorrect" info here seems to be derived from the " *Updated* Ultimate Pet Guide" on guildwarsguru where Epinephrine is from ^^" -PanSola 00:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ::How is that irony? There are many uninformed people everywhere. I didn't write that guide, and in fact the errors present in it spurred Jenosavel and I to do the research. ::As to the statement about damage - it is clear that in fact your pet taking damage is what needs to be avoided - I have made Dire pets using NO attack skills, thus my claim that attack skills are unecessary. You can evolve a pet that way against the minotaurs outside of the Ice Tooth Caves - since they don't heal they eventually die, you can simply allow your pet to attack the whole time and use Symbiotic Bond/Otyugh's Cry/Call of Protection to keep it from suffering damage, and keep yourself alive. It will go Dire. You simply have to let them deal damage - and that is why I objected - it is damage, not pet skills that matter. ::A correlation is obviously present between damage and pet skills. You _can_ however evolve a Dire pet using 0 beast mastery and 0 pet skills. In fact, I have evolved wolves in pre-searing to Dire without even taming them - I simply allowed them to kill me 800+ times. (For your information, I have tested every pet in the game - the pre-searing wolves and bears are the only animals that gain experience from killing a player (outside of PvP) - as they start as enemies they are awarded experience for the kills, no other animal does). Pre-searing is thus the only place you can level a pet by having it attack you. ::So to get a Dire pet you do not ever need to have a single skill used, nor a single point of Beast Mastery invested. As for experience, I'll repeat my experiments, but they indicated that the pets gain at roughly 2-3 times the rate of a person. I did this by counting how many kills were necessary per level of what enemies and comparing it to a chart of experience /level for players. The factor is hard to determine, as the experience was quantised (on a per creature basis) but was indicating 2-3 times - if I use lower level opponents the resolution will be better, but it will take much longer. :::You misunderstood me. I totally agree with the data you present above. My point was that the version of the article you commented upon originally did NOT say skills are REQUIRED. That version first stated damage dealt by pet is important, then mentioned pet skills as a FACTOR that can affect damage dealt by the pet. "Pet skills can affect damage dealt by pet, so be mindful of it and make sure your pet deals more/less damage to train in the offensive/defensive direction" was the gist of the prior version. -PanSola 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ::The issue of player damage/pet damage IS a tricky one - I suspect that dire evolution in truth has nothing to do with ANY ratio or difference between the damages, but is simply a measure of some TOTAL amount of damage dealt by the pet, with or without skills - possibly a total of damage dealt by the pet at that point, possibly a minimum per level, who knows - but I suspect it has nothing to do with the amount of damage your player deals, save that killing your pets enemies too fast prevents it from dealing enough damage. The fact that I can level a wolf to dire in the wild supports this belief. The reason that there is a conundrum here is that when a player deals damage it typically reduces the amount of damage that the pet deals; after all, the pet gains experience from the kill but has dealt less damage. I am proposing to test this theory shortly by raising a wolf to level 9 while allowing it to do all the damage against foes for which it gains experience, but returing and killing hordes of level 3 enemies once the pet is level 9 and no longer gains experience. In so doing my damage will far outstrip the pets damage, but I suspect that the pet will continue to develop as aggressive/Dire, even if I exceed it's damage output by a factor of 10 with every level. Of course, it could be measuring damage done per kill worth experience or something. If I hit problems I may just have to level it to dire more slowly, against foes that offer a better damage/experince ratio (lower level foes) so that I can deliver a substantialy portion of the damage against each foe, while not affecting the total amount of damage my pet has done. :::I also agree. The Player/Pet damage ratio theory just happened to be the dominent theory on the GWOnline ranger forums when the eariler version on evolution was written (it still is the dominent theory there right now). That section has been revised so now it list observed correlations with various theories, to emphasis that we don't know the exact mechanism yet. -PanSola 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ::Anyway, our testing is not complete, but the due date for guides had come so Jenosavel and I published. There is obviously much more to learn, and the experiments continue. For example, a method has been suggested to test the non-critical damage of pets by using arranged GvG and the balanced stance skill to cause criticals not to hit for extra damage - this should allow us to tease the true damage range of the pet out, and will allow us to see the critical hit rate as well (by comparison of the damage distributions). We are still working on various aspects that aren't fully understood, but hopefully have banished many myths about pets. I have some theories about pet experience, but they are theories, and can't be tested just yet - hopefully soon. -Epinephrine :::Hehe the non-critical damage was my suggestion, and I eagerly await a table on pet base damages. Keep up the good work! (-: -PanSola 22:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Added a note about changing secondary class away from ranger, as this question seems to come up a great deal on fora; the pet stays linked to the character. --Epinephrine 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC) :And lovely wording at that (-: -PanSola 12:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Pet Evolution The main pet evolution research is conducted at Beastmasters: Grand Pet Survey. If you read the last dozen or so pages, you will see strange results that are not entirely explained. We should revert to a version that accurately reflects the state of the pet evolution art, rather than maintain one that is verifiably false. If you think it is well understood, try evolving an Aggressive pet using the described methods on something like Charr outside Piken Square. --Daulnay 1:20 pm PST, October 24 2005 :See above "Corrections" section for Epinephrine's research on evolution. I propose a simple theory: Pet damage dealt vs pet damage taken. Which ever is greater will push evolution in that direction. Of course this is completely untested whatsoever, but it's simple and elegant and seems to be able to stay consistent with the observations that lead to the development of other theories. -PanSola 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ::I am tempted to agree with you PanSola - I suspect it truly is that simple as well, and that it has nothing to do with the master's damage rate at all, only that when the master deals the damage it takes away from the pet's damage output, as the damage dealt/experience point falls. - Epinephrine (who really should bother registering at some point) Category What can this go under? not skills because it isnt strictly charm animal 04:20, 4 November 2005 (EST) :We don't need to put everything in a category... --Rainith 04:31, 4 November 2005 (EST) Pet Skills I vote dumping them into a category and just linking to it. I do NOT want to see the current list in the article expanded into a table within this article, though wouldn't mind seeing a separate article containing that table. -PanSola 06:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC) OT Ideas for new "pets" in future expansions... This might be for Chapter 2 or Chapter 8193.31 or never happen, but a cool idea anyways... * Plant companion (you see all those walking trees running around?) * Mineral companion (eh, elementals?) * Mechanical companion (Mini Iron Forgemen!!!) * Candy companion (need I say more?) Pets might not just be limited to animals in the future! Though the ranger Beastmaster skills will not be able to affect those pets since they aren't "animal" companions. BTW, are insects animals? how about crabs and spiders? -PanSola 22:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC) :I think it'd be cool to be able to tame every non-sentient creature in the game. Shandy 04:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC) You can tame UW Spiders... Emyrs Myrrdin 17:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC) And the Moss Spiders in pre-, although I can't remember when you next see spiders (somewhere in Kryta, maybe?) --Nunix 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) : Theres those foul poisoning spiders in maguuma 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) ::Or hydras! It would give my E/R a reason to carry charm animal around - added fire ownage! | Chuiu 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) :::I'd go for wurms. I have this image in my head of a PVP battle: you have maybe a Necro/Ranger, standing alone all Scar Tattoo'd up, couple of Warriors are coming at him.. *BOOM* Siege Wurm pops up behind our necro hero! Moo hah hah hah! .. hah.. huh.. anywayyyy.. plus, I could could call it a "Spice is Life" build! kekeke --Nunix 20:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC) ::::Every non-sentient creature, Shandy? I'd take Glint then. ::::"Tank this, losers!" ::::I did a lot of damage with candy. ::::— Lunarbunny 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) ::::I'd have to agree with Nunix. Wurms would be cool, and freaky. Imagine 8 primary or secondary rangers with wurms. Talk about complete knock down. And hydras and bone dragons? Wow, the possibilities for "pets" are endless. --TheSpectator 03:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ::::PanSola mentioned crabs. I can see the GvG group names now. "We've got Crabs" keeps favor of the gods for America. *rolls eyes* :P --Gares Redstorm 04:04, 24 February 2006 (CST) Pet Damage Types There was an anon edit that said: Some recent tests using healing signet, 0 tactics, two shields (a +4 blunt, and a plain shield) have turned some results that hint that Warthogs may actually do blunt damage. w/ +4 shield, 10-16 vs lvl 5 Warthog no armor and healing signet. range w/o +4 shield 11-18 same conditions. (test over 100 hits while using signet). Comparing that to the extensiveness of tests performed by Jenosavel and Epinephrine (see footnote #4, I'm more inclined to go with Jenosavel and Epinephrine's results. If the anon user would like to challenge this result, I suggest posting more details of the numbers during the tests. -19:04, 18 February 2006 (CST) is another anon edit confirming that Warthog's are not slashing or piercing, although I can't yet specificly say that its blunt damage. Tested on 23 February 2006 (PST)